An apology for a “condescending and cringey” review
October 5, 2021 5:02 PM Subscribe
The truth is we are always litigating how we feel about a piece of music, revising opinions based on context, culture, who we’ve become, who we once were. We can’t change what we said, but we are almost always changing how we feel about it in ways both small and large. Pitchfork Reviews: Rescored. In which Pitchfork goes backs and revises 19 album review scores...
Including!
Including!
Daft Punk: Discovery (2001): 6.4 → 10
Liz Phair: Liz Phair (2003): 0.0 → 6.0
Chief Keef: Back From the Dead (2012): 7.9 → 9.1
Wilco: Sky Blue Sky (2007): 5.2 → 8.5
Prince: Musicology (2004): 5.8 → 7.8
Big Boi: Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty (2010): 9.2 → 7.7
No correction of the Flaming Lips Zaireeka 0.0? Pain in the ass to get 4 CD players sync’d, yeah, but there are some fantastic tracks on that album.
The best ones are streaming as stereo mixes on the various services under the Soft Bulletin supplement CD.
posted by hwyengr at 5:24 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
The best ones are streaming as stereo mixes on the various services under the Soft Bulletin supplement CD.
posted by hwyengr at 5:24 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
If Grimes cures cancer ten years from now — or people have forgotten about the Elon Musk drama, whichever comes first — I'm crossing my fingers she'll regain one or maybe two points in Pitchfork's vaunted review system.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:26 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:26 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
Oh man, those were different days. Speaking one of the original reviewer one of the rescored albums (Rilo Kiley), the PItchfork of the late 90s/early oughts was a very different article than the site today. Among other things, people were still buying CDs and arguing about selling out, the writers were largely non-professional all-but-volunteers (I got $10/review + the promo) from a snarkier generation at a snarkier moment. I'm pretty sure I got hired on the strength of a sample review in which I gleefully eviscerated Ryan Adams for being a creep and a narcissist (I wasn't wrong, as it happened), and it was equally true that the worse reviews got page hits and lots of online conversation, which often meant that a band got way more attention for getting panned by Pitchfork than getting meh-ed with a 6.5. All of us writing were pretty young then. I was one of the only women on staff which always made me feel like I had to prove my mettle by being more of an asshole. And, in at least a few cases, I am very sorry about that. It is certainly one of the biggest reasons why I quit writing for Pitchfork (that and being too often asked to review my friends' bands, which I-- naively, perhaps-- believed to be an ethical violation). It was much better working at a record store, recommending stuff to people that I thought they would like, as opposed to taking not-as-clever-as-I thought pot shots at things I believed were overrated. So I did that and switched the focus of my writing to making fun of myself, as opposed to the bands I didn't like.
Still don't love that Rilo Kiley record, though I listened to it again today for probably the first time in 20 years. Not that it matters, not that it ever did. For a brief period of time, perfect strangers were very, very angry with me on the internet about that review. But by the time the second Rilo Kiley record came out, Jenny Lewis was a star and I was unemployed living in an un-airconditioned house in the North Carolina Piedmont with a bunch of similarly depressed and broke young women who couldn't even summon up the energy to pretend to have a band. I think that's fair.
Anyway, good stroll down memory lane.
posted by thivaia at 5:30 PM on October 5, 2021 [156 favorites]
Still don't love that Rilo Kiley record, though I listened to it again today for probably the first time in 20 years. Not that it matters, not that it ever did. For a brief period of time, perfect strangers were very, very angry with me on the internet about that review. But by the time the second Rilo Kiley record came out, Jenny Lewis was a star and I was unemployed living in an un-airconditioned house in the North Carolina Piedmont with a bunch of similarly depressed and broke young women who couldn't even summon up the energy to pretend to have a band. I think that's fair.
Anyway, good stroll down memory lane.
posted by thivaia at 5:30 PM on October 5, 2021 [156 favorites]
Notably not revisited here is Pitchfork’s 8 or 9 for Save Ferris’s It Means Everything, which has simply been scrubbed from the site asking with many of the early (pre-2000?) reviews.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:37 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 5:37 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
No correction of the Flaming Lips Zaireeka 0.0? Pain in the ass to get 4 CD players sync’d, yeah
The beautiful thing about that album was realizing that a set of four cheap-ass CD players assembled amongst your undergrad buddies will, even if you miraculously all hit play at the same time, experience pretty noticeable clock drift.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:53 PM on October 5, 2021 [24 favorites]
The beautiful thing about that album was realizing that a set of four cheap-ass CD players assembled amongst your undergrad buddies will, even if you miraculously all hit play at the same time, experience pretty noticeable clock drift.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:53 PM on October 5, 2021 [24 favorites]
Reviewers revising old reviews after time has passed and additional reflection is a good thing, changing arbitrary numbers to new arbitrary numbers annoys me though.
In my view of record rating, its tough to imagine what a record would have to be like in order to get a 0.0... That would have to be a work that has no appeal whatsoever to anyone, whether noise fans, people that love horrible things or people who pick their interests based on the maximum limited appeal.
posted by drezdn at 6:10 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
In my view of record rating, its tough to imagine what a record would have to be like in order to get a 0.0... That would have to be a work that has no appeal whatsoever to anyone, whether noise fans, people that love horrible things or people who pick their interests based on the maximum limited appeal.
posted by drezdn at 6:10 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
I guess the world is not yet ready to reconsider Push Kings.
posted by snofoam at 6:10 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 6:10 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I saw Push Kings play at the Middle East. They were good solid powerpop! (It was the 90s, before the album reviewed here; doesn't look like Pitchfork ever reviewed their earlier stuff.)
posted by escabeche at 6:15 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by escabeche at 6:15 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I notice that nobody signed their names to these re-evaluations and the entire thing is just credited to Pitchfork. I also notice that if you search the albums in their review database the original scores and reviews are still in place.
So, was it it the critics re-evaluating their earlier or reviews or is that Pitchfork decided they couldn't let these reviews stand? If the critic changed their mind on the review the original review should be updated to reflect their change of opinion. For Pitchfork to say that they, the magazine, got it wrong is disrespectful to the critic and for them to change that critics score and put words in their mouth is even worse. If they didn't like how those reviews aged and reflected upon their role as a tastemaker they should have written new retrospective reviews with an actual human on the byline.
Saying, "oh, these are just some conversations we had collectively" is cowardly.
posted by forbiddencabinet at 6:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
So, was it it the critics re-evaluating their earlier or reviews or is that Pitchfork decided they couldn't let these reviews stand? If the critic changed their mind on the review the original review should be updated to reflect their change of opinion. For Pitchfork to say that they, the magazine, got it wrong is disrespectful to the critic and for them to change that critics score and put words in their mouth is even worse. If they didn't like how those reviews aged and reflected upon their role as a tastemaker they should have written new retrospective reviews with an actual human on the byline.
Saying, "oh, these are just some conversations we had collectively" is cowardly.
posted by forbiddencabinet at 6:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
No, each reevaluation has a name at the end for whoever did it. Also in the intro they say these are not canon in bold so the original reviews still stand.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 6:25 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 6:25 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
They were good solid powerpop!
For sure, but the album in question was definitely not Record Hospital material, even for the poppier folk.
posted by snofoam at 6:31 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
For sure, but the album in question was definitely not Record Hospital material, even for the poppier folk.
posted by snofoam at 6:31 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Oh, I missed the name at the end of each re-evaluation. I didn't miss the bolded declaration of that the reviews aren't canon. I just think that is cowardly. Either they stand by the reviews or they don't. Plenty of review magazines have more than one critic review something. They should post new reviews. I don't like the coy way they have approached this and I think it is disrespectful to the original critics.
posted by forbiddencabinet at 6:34 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by forbiddencabinet at 6:34 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I think it is disrespectful to the original critics.
Speaking as someone who is fine with the world spinning on without my admittedly dubious takes, I'm not too worked up about it.
This, however, is both totally accurate and "people got salaries?"
posted by thivaia at 6:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
Speaking as someone who is fine with the world spinning on without my admittedly dubious takes, I'm not too worked up about it.
This, however, is both totally accurate and "people got salaries?"
posted by thivaia at 6:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
No statue was ever built to a Pitchfork critic. Hmm, well maybe a microstatue to Philip Sherburne.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
I definitely agree with the re-ratings of Daft Punk and Chief Keef, but the Big Boi one is still overrated IMHO.
posted by jwest at 6:49 PM on October 5, 2021
posted by jwest at 6:49 PM on October 5, 2021
loudermilk?
posted by j_curiouser at 6:53 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by j_curiouser at 6:53 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think it is disrespectful to the original critics.
Many of Pitchfork's original critics were obnoxiously shitty white dudes and it's honestly something of a surprise that they haven't tried to memory-hole a lot of the site's early years. Moreover, Pitchfork effectively made its name on being aggressively, over-the-top disrespectful to artists in scads of reviews.
Anyway, while they obviously aren't going to embark on a comprehensive reevaluation of, you know, all their wrongs, this little teaser probably nets out to an increase in embarrassment. Ooh, so brave of you Pitchfork, to look deep in your hearts and determine, yes, even more Wilco and The Strokes records are great, and now that we're all Poptimists let's rev up the scores on a random sampling of pop stuff.
Wake me when they give The Mars Volta proper consideration. I've always maintained that if TMV were composed of five white guys from Brooklyn, the Pitchfork staff would've clubbed each other to death in the race to award De-Loused in the Comatorium a rave review.
posted by sinfony at 6:54 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
Many of Pitchfork's original critics were obnoxiously shitty white dudes and it's honestly something of a surprise that they haven't tried to memory-hole a lot of the site's early years. Moreover, Pitchfork effectively made its name on being aggressively, over-the-top disrespectful to artists in scads of reviews.
Anyway, while they obviously aren't going to embark on a comprehensive reevaluation of, you know, all their wrongs, this little teaser probably nets out to an increase in embarrassment. Ooh, so brave of you Pitchfork, to look deep in your hearts and determine, yes, even more Wilco and The Strokes records are great, and now that we're all Poptimists let's rev up the scores on a random sampling of pop stuff.
Wake me when they give The Mars Volta proper consideration. I've always maintained that if TMV were composed of five white guys from Brooklyn, the Pitchfork staff would've clubbed each other to death in the race to award De-Loused in the Comatorium a rave review.
posted by sinfony at 6:54 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
thivaia, your take on that Rilo Kiley is pretty solid, except it probably deserved an extra .5 or .7 because of the Dawson's Creek connection. That's some real fin de siècle zeitgeist there.
posted by betweenthebars at 6:57 PM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 6:57 PM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
At various times in my life I've been a critic for Art, Music, and Literature (not the best but not the worst). If I could go back in time and re-write every review that I've ever wrote, they would all be different, I'd try to be more insightful and more charitable.
posted by ovvl at 6:58 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by ovvl at 6:58 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
No reevaluation of the infamous Jet review?
posted by dismas at 7:24 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by dismas at 7:24 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
My 17-year-old hates millennials and hate-reads old Pitchfork reviews because he gets some sort of frisson from exposure to condescension and cringe. So there’s one person who is poorer for this.
posted by mph at 7:32 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by mph at 7:32 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Pitchfork also definitely deep-sixed some of their old reviews as they transitioned to a larger organization- I recall that there was at one point a pretty glowing review of Brushfire Fairytales that disappeared after a year or so…
I still have a soft spot for the site because I feel it’s essentially tracked my own development as a human. I’d love the ability to revisit some of the things I said in my 20’s and correct the record with people I was unjustifiably unkind to, also.
posted by q*ben at 7:37 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
I still have a soft spot for the site because I feel it’s essentially tracked my own development as a human. I’d love the ability to revisit some of the things I said in my 20’s and correct the record with people I was unjustifiably unkind to, also.
posted by q*ben at 7:37 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
changing arbitrary numbers to new arbitrary numbers annoys me though.
MF Doom: Expektoration Live (2010): 6.0 -> a+bi
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
MF Doom: Expektoration Live (2010): 6.0 -> a+bi
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
The snark, vitriol, and gatekeeping of early Pitchfork is something that I'd be very okay not passing onto the next generation.
posted by schmod at 7:53 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by schmod at 7:53 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
No reevaluation of the infamous Jet review?
It's because that wasn't actually a review but a marvelous piece of transcendent art that will probably be read and discussed long after anyone can remember who Jet were.
Pitchfork doesn't need to reevaluate that work. Instead, that work should prompt Jet to reevaluate their existence as a band.
posted by euphorb at 8:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
It's because that wasn't actually a review but a marvelous piece of transcendent art that will probably be read and discussed long after anyone can remember who Jet were.
Pitchfork doesn't need to reevaluate that work. Instead, that work should prompt Jet to reevaluate their existence as a band.
posted by euphorb at 8:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
I thought it was interesting they revised Jeffrey Lewis upward. I was going to say snarky things about Jeffrey Lewis but instead I am ordering his David Berman poster.
posted by smelendez at 8:54 PM on October 5, 2021
posted by smelendez at 8:54 PM on October 5, 2021
No reevaluation of the infamous Jet review?
Probably a good time to bring up Slate's When Critics Could Kill (focusing on folks who got <1.0 reviews from PF) again.
As someone who's done the writing/editing thang, I empathize with folks who felt they weren't able to perfectly capture the gist of a record (or properly articulate their thoughts concerning said release) before the Deadline cometh. Still, the fact that most of these "revised" reviews come from folks other than the original reviewers (and that the former occasionally make pretty big assumptions about the latter) makes this seem more "cover our collective asses now that Popular Musical Opinions have changed" than "well, we've had to time to think about it and..."
posted by gtrwolf at 9:26 PM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
Probably a good time to bring up Slate's When Critics Could Kill (focusing on folks who got <1.0 reviews from PF) again.
As someone who's done the writing/editing thang, I empathize with folks who felt they weren't able to perfectly capture the gist of a record (or properly articulate their thoughts concerning said release) before the Deadline cometh. Still, the fact that most of these "revised" reviews come from folks other than the original reviewers (and that the former occasionally make pretty big assumptions about the latter) makes this seem more "cover our collective asses now that Popular Musical Opinions have changed" than "well, we've had to time to think about it and..."
posted by gtrwolf at 9:26 PM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
I have thoughts on a lot of these, but I'll just say I'm glad they re-evaluated Random Access Memories. I was just getting into dance floors and dance music for real when that came out and I was SOO excited for it and then it was everywhere and I kept trying to hear what everybody else was hearing but … no. It needed a remix record to make those songs do what they thought they were doing; if you're doing it right everybody will be dancing indeed.
posted by wemayfreeze at 9:34 PM on October 5, 2021
posted by wemayfreeze at 9:34 PM on October 5, 2021
Pitchfork's "Best New Music" is a great gateway to taking a 50/50 shot on whether something is pretty good or the reviewer is the stupidest tone-deaf piece of shit to ever get spat out into the world.
posted by turbid dahlia at 9:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 9:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
(Their Jet Shine On review is spot-on though.)
posted by turbid dahlia at 9:51 PM on October 5, 2021
posted by turbid dahlia at 9:51 PM on October 5, 2021
(Here's the Jet review for any others who hadn't seen it before...)
posted by kaibutsu at 10:05 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 10:05 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Speaking of condescending and cringey, here's their current take on Charli XCX:
To a certain, very melodramatic, very online type of Twitter user, there was nothing more homophobic than our humble publication giving a 4.5 to Charli XCX’s Vroom Vroom EP.
It looks like someone's feelings got hurt, and they haven't quite gotten over it.
posted by Umami Dearest at 11:19 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
To a certain, very melodramatic, very online type of Twitter user, there was nothing more homophobic than our humble publication giving a 4.5 to Charli XCX’s Vroom Vroom EP.
It looks like someone's feelings got hurt, and they haven't quite gotten over it.
posted by Umami Dearest at 11:19 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Either they stand by the reviews or they don't.
The old reviews stand - this is more of an alternate reality of reviews.
(I’m pretty sure they have actually deleted some of their more embarrassing really old reviews, though, like the “me and my droogs” Coltrane one.)
posted by atoxyl at 11:25 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
The old reviews stand - this is more of an alternate reality of reviews.
(I’m pretty sure they have actually deleted some of their more embarrassing really old reviews, though, like the “me and my droogs” Coltrane one.)
posted by atoxyl at 11:25 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
I would argue that reviewers opinion is pretty much worthless, as someone who doesn’t read reviews to determine what I should or should not enjoy. If a writer wants to slag some band or give them big ups,, go for it.
I’m still not going to read it.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 11:25 PM on October 5, 2021
I’m still not going to read it.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 11:25 PM on October 5, 2021
I'll never forgive them for scrubbing their initial review and poor rating for Sufjan Stevens's "Michigan". First panned as derivitave glock rock or something like that, they did a 180 and admitted as much a few weeks later when the rest of the world caught on that he was actually a major talent. Considering that was 03 or 04 it's not surprising it's now digital ash but damn if I wouldn't kill to find that original review.
posted by Dokterrock at 11:34 PM on October 5, 2021
posted by Dokterrock at 11:34 PM on October 5, 2021
These adjustments are born out of conversations we have all the time here on staff, much like the conversations you, our dear opinionated reader, have as well. They are hypothetical, which is to say, not canon, but rather a fun little diversion, a conversation-starter brought to you by the individual grievances of the Pitchfork staff.
Such a weird way to frame this, I mean, yeah, the published the old reviews so they should acknowledge that, but hypothetical? They're real reviews and published as "canon" in the same way as the previous takes, just updated to fit current context or understanding. Their reviews are heavy on context so will undoubtedly shift as times change beyond the even the difference of taste thing always baked in to reviewing pop culture as it happens.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:03 AM on October 6, 2021
Such a weird way to frame this, I mean, yeah, the published the old reviews so they should acknowledge that, but hypothetical? They're real reviews and published as "canon" in the same way as the previous takes, just updated to fit current context or understanding. Their reviews are heavy on context so will undoubtedly shift as times change beyond the even the difference of taste thing always baked in to reviewing pop culture as it happens.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:03 AM on October 6, 2021
For those who like the internet's busiest music nerd, Anthony Fantano: Pitchfork Changed Their Scores.
posted by Pendragon at 12:09 AM on October 6, 2021
posted by Pendragon at 12:09 AM on October 6, 2021
If Grimes cures cancer ten years from now — or people have forgotten about the Elon Musk drama, whichever comes first — I'm crossing my fingers she'll regain one or maybe two points in Pitchfork's vaunted review system.
I once added one of her albums ("Art Angels") to my end-of-year list, largely on the feeling of “everybody's talking about this so I probably shouldn't get left behind”, despite only having made myself listen to it a few times. In retrospect, I realised that this was a mistake: the album was very forgettable, leaving behind only a memory of slightly edgy-sounding dilettante-ish electropop without particularly strong songs or musical ideas. I suspect the hype that boosted her before and the cringe of the Musk thing will cancel each other out, leaving an equally indistinct blur.
Then maybe she'll find her voice and do something worth listening to in its own right, or maybe not.
posted by acb at 1:16 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
I once added one of her albums ("Art Angels") to my end-of-year list, largely on the feeling of “everybody's talking about this so I probably shouldn't get left behind”, despite only having made myself listen to it a few times. In retrospect, I realised that this was a mistake: the album was very forgettable, leaving behind only a memory of slightly edgy-sounding dilettante-ish electropop without particularly strong songs or musical ideas. I suspect the hype that boosted her before and the cringe of the Musk thing will cancel each other out, leaving an equally indistinct blur.
Then maybe she'll find her voice and do something worth listening to in its own right, or maybe not.
posted by acb at 1:16 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Knocking Miss Anthropocene down is one day going to seem as shortsighted as some of the other scores they're revising upwards. It's not as strong as Art Angels, but only because that was one of the best albums of the decade. "Sounds like a carbon copy of herself" is such an odd line of criticism. Make a new album that sounds like your best work, and that's a bad thing?
(On preview: ha! Art Angels was my album of the decade. My opinion of her went down a notch when she hooked up with Musk, but my opinion of her work never did.)
posted by rory at 1:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
(On preview: ha! Art Angels was my album of the decade. My opinion of her went down a notch when she hooked up with Musk, but my opinion of her work never did.)
posted by rory at 1:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
On further review of the article, original critics, etc., there is one case where the original critic has publicly rejected/ apologized for his review: Matt Lemay regrets giving a 0.0 to Liz Phair's eponymous 2003 album.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:02 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:02 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
I see there is no mention yet of the infamous Kid A review from 2000:
Thom Yorke slowly beat on a grand piano, singing, eyes closed, into his microphone like he was trying to kiss around a big nose.
The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax.
I distinctly remember muttering "WTF?" to myself in my dorm room, staring at my CRT monitor, trying to figure out if this was an elaborate troll or the most pretentious review ever. Twenty-one years later I can't recall any songs from the actual album, but I do remember the review, so, uh, point Pitchfork.
posted by fortitude25 at 3:57 AM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
Thom Yorke slowly beat on a grand piano, singing, eyes closed, into his microphone like he was trying to kiss around a big nose.
The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax.
I distinctly remember muttering "WTF?" to myself in my dorm room, staring at my CRT monitor, trying to figure out if this was an elaborate troll or the most pretentious review ever. Twenty-one years later I can't recall any songs from the actual album, but I do remember the review, so, uh, point Pitchfork.
posted by fortitude25 at 3:57 AM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
Super happy to see some justice for Liz Phair. Her output has been no more hit-or-miss than any other indie artist, but the sheer levels of misgynistic vitriol that has been firehosed at her over the years has made me sick to my stomach at times. At her best she's a solid songwriter, unabashed and can cut deep. Glad to see the initial reviewer own up to his biases.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:40 AM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:40 AM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax
As a fan of Kid A/Amnesiac, I'd say: fair cop.
posted by acb at 4:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
As a fan of Kid A/Amnesiac, I'd say: fair cop.
posted by acb at 4:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
This is an interesting stroll down memory lane. I haven't really thought about pitchfork in years, but they were THE taste maker of the very early 00s. Back then the pretentiousness was a feature, not a bug. Seems pretty cringey in retrospect though.
Re Grimes: I actually think they're kind of generous here. To me Grimes discography follows the classic hero's journey of indie pop music: one or two early albums to find your voice, absolute masterpiece (Visions), hugely hyped poppier album with 1-2 bangers that is otherwise just OK (Art Angels), become romantically involved with a celebrity, the magic is lost unpleasant album (Miss Anthropocene).
Re Rilo Kiley: it's ok for a great band to take a minute to find their sound. Sorry but Take Offs... isn't that great. They honestly sort of follow that same Grimes trajectory here with a clear peak on Execution, although their last two albums actually hold up pretty well.
Re Daft Punk : the article seems about right. It was impossible to avoid the hype for RAM so of course it's sort of a let down. But there are enough tracks on it that are genuinely great that it's still pretty solid.
Re Prince: Prince has always ruled. Sometimes the world just needed time to realize this. Sadly it was things like Pitchfork that prevented me from realizing this until after he died.
posted by cirrostratus at 4:53 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Re Grimes: I actually think they're kind of generous here. To me Grimes discography follows the classic hero's journey of indie pop music: one or two early albums to find your voice, absolute masterpiece (Visions), hugely hyped poppier album with 1-2 bangers that is otherwise just OK (Art Angels), become romantically involved with a celebrity, the magic is lost unpleasant album (Miss Anthropocene).
Re Rilo Kiley: it's ok for a great band to take a minute to find their sound. Sorry but Take Offs... isn't that great. They honestly sort of follow that same Grimes trajectory here with a clear peak on Execution, although their last two albums actually hold up pretty well.
Re Daft Punk : the article seems about right. It was impossible to avoid the hype for RAM so of course it's sort of a let down. But there are enough tracks on it that are genuinely great that it's still pretty solid.
Re Prince: Prince has always ruled. Sometimes the world just needed time to realize this. Sadly it was things like Pitchfork that prevented me from realizing this until after he died.
posted by cirrostratus at 4:53 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
As a sometimes Wilco fan, I don't really see a reason to re-evaluate Sky Blue Sky. It's got a few great tracks and a bunch of filler which is sadly the story with most of their post Ghost is Born output.
posted by octothorpe at 5:47 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 5:47 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Totally agree with octothorpe about Sky Blah Sky.
posted by oulipian at 5:56 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by oulipian at 5:56 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
I find that a fair bit of the music from my youth that I revisit as a grown-ass man and like more now than I did then is stuff that at the time seemed like just more of the same of what was in style at the time and therefore unremarkable...but now, largely devoid of that context, it's just awesome music.
I'm a huge Liz Phair fan. I went back and listened to that self-titled album recently...0.0 was definitely too harsh, 6.0 seems a bit too generous. The production on that one just doesn't seem like a good fit for her.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:06 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'm a huge Liz Phair fan. I went back and listened to that self-titled album recently...0.0 was definitely too harsh, 6.0 seems a bit too generous. The production on that one just doesn't seem like a good fit for her.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:06 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
mph: "My 17-year-old hates millennials and hate-reads old Pitchfork reviews because he gets some sort of frisson from exposure to condescension and cringe."
This makes me feel young again.
posted by chavenet at 6:11 AM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
This makes me feel young again.
posted by chavenet at 6:11 AM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
Liz Phair is a record I have listened to more than anything else she’s done since and in a lot of years more often (once or twice) than anything she did earlier (yes, including Guyville) at zero or once each. It’s not a perfect record but it’s about as perfect a pop record as an indie goddess with a liberal arts degree turned divorced upper middle class single mom in her 30s is going to make.
posted by MattD at 6:17 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by MattD at 6:17 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
I think I might have built the website for that Jet album. Heh.
posted by pipeski at 6:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 6:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
50 comments and not one mention of PJ Harvey - Stories from the City, Stories from the Sea?
Okay, so here's mine: one of the very best rock albums of the century. I appreciate the rescore, but an initial 5.4 rating was borderline criminal, and still underrated at 8.4.
If you haven't listened to this album and you like Awesome Things, queue it up because it is.
posted by mcstayinskool at 6:37 AM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
Okay, so here's mine: one of the very best rock albums of the century. I appreciate the rescore, but an initial 5.4 rating was borderline criminal, and still underrated at 8.4.
If you haven't listened to this album and you like Awesome Things, queue it up because it is.
posted by mcstayinskool at 6:37 AM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
The really crazy thing about Stories From The City... is that as good as it is - and it's fantastic - it's like PJ Harvey's fourth or fifth-best album (imho).
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:40 AM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:40 AM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
Early in my career I did some music criticism, but that was a couple of years before the Internet existed (thank God). But I'm close to several people who still write it. I remember hearing they got a lot of pushback for raving about Liz Phair's early stuff -- "girl rocker talks dirty, boy critics swoon" was the comment -- and I think the slagging of Liz Phair was largely them pushing back at the perception of being hormone-driven fanboys.
Which is a garbage way to work, of course. Sure, you should always be willing to question your own opinions, but you also have to evaluate stuff on its merits, not on someone pricking your ego.
Early on, someone told me, you should start every review by asking yourself two questions: What is the artist trying to do, and did they succeed at it? And you pretty much have to do that when your job is reviewing both Ozzy Osborne and Reba McEntire, and everything in between.
posted by martin q blank at 6:46 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Which is a garbage way to work, of course. Sure, you should always be willing to question your own opinions, but you also have to evaluate stuff on its merits, not on someone pricking your ego.
Early on, someone told me, you should start every review by asking yourself two questions: What is the artist trying to do, and did they succeed at it? And you pretty much have to do that when your job is reviewing both Ozzy Osborne and Reba McEntire, and everything in between.
posted by martin q blank at 6:46 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
I don't know how to deal with farm implements that have changing opinions.
posted by srboisvert at 7:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 7:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
This exercise by Pitchfork is curious. It's nowhere near the wholesale revisionism Rolling Stone used to perform with its album reviews--look at how rapidly their views of prog-rock changed from the late 1970s to the early 1980s, for example. It's also not a full-scale examination of their snarky, holier-than-thou past--which thivaia eloquently discussed above. Overall, it has the feel of a Twitter thread where someone is thinking out loud.
The review I'm totally shocked to see be revised? Lana Del Rey. Given that Pitchfork was largely responsible for her deification, immediately followed by her demonization, it takes a lot of chutzpah to say how "overheated the discussion around LDR was in 2012" when your org was leading both sides of it at the time.
posted by stannate at 7:09 AM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
The review I'm totally shocked to see be revised? Lana Del Rey. Given that Pitchfork was largely responsible for her deification, immediately followed by her demonization, it takes a lot of chutzpah to say how "overheated the discussion around LDR was in 2012" when your org was leading both sides of it at the time.
posted by stannate at 7:09 AM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
These adjustments […] are hypothetical, which is to say, not canon, but rather a fun little diversion, a conversation-starter brought to you by the individual grievances of the Pitchfork staff.Much like forbiddencabinet, I struggle to see the point in this. Why not change the actual scores or publish these as proper re-reviews? It feels like ending a thesis statement with, “This is just a thought exercise and I don’t actually stand behind any of this. Read on anyway!”
posted by EmperorOozy at 7:14 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
MeFi: Speaking of condescending and cringey
posted by elkevelvet at 7:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by elkevelvet at 7:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Much like forbiddencabinet, I struggle to see the point in this. Why not change the actual scores or publish these as proper re-reviews? It feels like ending a thesis statement with, “This is just a thought exercise and I don’t actually stand behind any of this. Read on anyway!”
Honestly, the whole idea of ‘canonical’ reviews seems to be granting the process more seriousness than it deserves. I think reviews can be valuable and interesting and entertaining, but if all reviews of newly released music (or books, TV, films, games) ended with “this is my genuine opinion now, but I don’t promise I’ll still feel the same way in six months time”, that would seem pretty healthy to me.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 7:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
Honestly, the whole idea of ‘canonical’ reviews seems to be granting the process more seriousness than it deserves. I think reviews can be valuable and interesting and entertaining, but if all reviews of newly released music (or books, TV, films, games) ended with “this is my genuine opinion now, but I don’t promise I’ll still feel the same way in six months time”, that would seem pretty healthy to me.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 7:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
^ I take reviews far too seriously and I agree with this whole heartedly
a person needs only look back over their own consumption of music, shows, etc over time.. some things last, some judgements were foolish, we all grow and our tastes change. this is such a fascinating discussion tbh
posted by elkevelvet at 7:58 AM on October 6, 2021
a person needs only look back over their own consumption of music, shows, etc over time.. some things last, some judgements were foolish, we all grow and our tastes change. this is such a fascinating discussion tbh
posted by elkevelvet at 7:58 AM on October 6, 2021
a person needs only look back over their own consumption of music, shows, etc over time.. some things last, some judgements were foolish, we all grow and our tastes change. this is such a fascinating discussion tbh
Particularly when some of the things I most love today I hated last week, year or decade. With music taste in particular I tend to grow into things that I end up loving rather than being instantly smitten. Sometimes it takes weeks, sometimes it takes years and sometimes decades. And the reverse is even more true. Somethings I love instantly I end up despising.
posted by srboisvert at 9:04 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Particularly when some of the things I most love today I hated last week, year or decade. With music taste in particular I tend to grow into things that I end up loving rather than being instantly smitten. Sometimes it takes weeks, sometimes it takes years and sometimes decades. And the reverse is even more true. Somethings I love instantly I end up despising.
posted by srboisvert at 9:04 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
thivaia: it was equally true that the worse reviews got page hits and lots of online conversation, which often meant that a band got way more attention for getting panned by Pitchfork than getting meh-ed with a 6.5.
True of most online media, and also a lot of dead-trees critics, such as the late John Simon.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:09 AM on October 6, 2021
True of most online media, and also a lot of dead-trees critics, such as the late John Simon.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:09 AM on October 6, 2021
If any other old people are in this thread, they might remember PF's infamous pan of Belle and Sebastian's Boy With the Arab Strap in 1998. Memory-holed from the PF site, which features a genial 2018 re-review, it lives on here.
posted by sy at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by sy at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Memory-holed from the PF site, which features a genial 2018 re-review, it lives on here.
From 0.8 to 8.5? That's some fine historical-rewritin'.
posted by rory at 10:08 AM on October 6, 2021
From 0.8 to 8.5? That's some fine historical-rewritin'.
posted by rory at 10:08 AM on October 6, 2021
I used to read a lot of record reviews mostly because new music was so much harder to find pre-YouTube and I was super bored. I actually appreciate terrible harsh reviews of music I do like as much as fawning ones over records I've heard and don't like. I have bought music based on reviews - out of the SubPop mailorder catalogue, and most of their reviews of their own artists were one line.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:29 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:29 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
OK - so... A bit off topic, but related to the 'amateur reviews' back in the day...
I'm recalling a similar site to pitchfork (music reviews) that IIRC was on the whole "hip" side, I want to say it had something to do with Blue and the letter S stands out in my name. It may have been more than music, but media in general?
It definitely had hipster vibes and somewhat communal. A sort of hybrid between magazine and forum/community? I tried to lookup "defunct" music sites but that's just music services not sites. I definitely feel like there were film reviews. I vaguely remember little square "previews" in the header (like sections?) or "top stories" but this was before web2.0. Early 00s. Does this sound familiar?
-
I do think revisiting old reviews is an interesting idea... I think back to how hard Confield was on first listen for me, but over time it grew on me (didn't take long) and is one of my favorite autechre albums even if I don't listen to it as much, but with their newer releases it has dropped slightly in favor of the newer stuff but still up there. Anyways, yeah, perception and ratings are not a static thing and everything is a relationship both between an artists own albums and other artists of the ouvre in a given time frame, and as music/culture evolves and what's expected/accepted....
Bring on dynamic reviews!
posted by symbioid at 11:48 AM on October 6, 2021
I'm recalling a similar site to pitchfork (music reviews) that IIRC was on the whole "hip" side, I want to say it had something to do with Blue and the letter S stands out in my name. It may have been more than music, but media in general?
It definitely had hipster vibes and somewhat communal. A sort of hybrid between magazine and forum/community? I tried to lookup "defunct" music sites but that's just music services not sites. I definitely feel like there were film reviews. I vaguely remember little square "previews" in the header (like sections?) or "top stories" but this was before web2.0. Early 00s. Does this sound familiar?
-
I do think revisiting old reviews is an interesting idea... I think back to how hard Confield was on first listen for me, but over time it grew on me (didn't take long) and is one of my favorite autechre albums even if I don't listen to it as much, but with their newer releases it has dropped slightly in favor of the newer stuff but still up there. Anyways, yeah, perception and ratings are not a static thing and everything is a relationship both between an artists own albums and other artists of the ouvre in a given time frame, and as music/culture evolves and what's expected/accepted....
Bring on dynamic reviews!
posted by symbioid at 11:48 AM on October 6, 2021
I'll never forgive them for scrubbing their initial review and poor rating for Sufjan Stevens's "Michigan"
I personally am withholding my assessment until the project is completed, so...two down, forty-eight to go!
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:06 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
I personally am withholding my assessment until the project is completed, so...two down, forty-eight to go!
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:06 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Assigning a numeric score to an album (especially one that goes out to one decimal place) is inherently kind of silly. I used to read the new releases newsletter from Aquarius Records. My understanding was that the people who worked at the store would only review albums that they liked to some degree. So they didn't pan albums, if nobody liked it they just wouldn't review it or carry it. And I think there's a qualitative difference between someone who likes an album telling you what they like and don't like about it, versus someone making a pretense of objectively valuing an album on a 10 point scale. Plus they linked to clips from the songs they reviewed, so you could actually give it a listen to see what the reviewer was talking about.
Here's an example weekly newsletter from the wayback machine (link taken from the NPR piece above). I miss you, Aquarius.
posted by jomato at 12:18 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Here's an example weekly newsletter from the wayback machine (link taken from the NPR piece above). I miss you, Aquarius.
posted by jomato at 12:18 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
In my view of record rating, its tough to imagine what a record would have to be like in order to get a 0.0... That would have to be a work that has no appeal whatsoever to anyone, whether noise fans, people that love horrible things or people who pick their interests based on the maximum limited appeal.
Or it could be an album by a woman!
posted by medusa at 12:50 PM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
Or it could be an album by a woman!
posted by medusa at 12:50 PM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
Mostly I'm just annoyed that they used the word "canon."
posted by soundguy99 at 1:05 PM on October 6, 2021
posted by soundguy99 at 1:05 PM on October 6, 2021
Early on, someone told me, you should start every review by asking yourself two questions: What is the artist trying to do, and did they succeed at it? And you pretty much have to do that when your job is reviewing both Ozzy Osborne and Reba McEntire, and everything in between.
He probably wasn't the one who told you, but that's basically rule 1 of Updike's reviewing rules:
https://biblioklept.org/2010/04/14/john-updikes-rules-for-reviewing-books/
1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.
posted by bootlegpop at 3:51 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
He probably wasn't the one who told you, but that's basically rule 1 of Updike's reviewing rules:
https://biblioklept.org/2010/04/14/john-updikes-rules-for-reviewing-books/
1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.
posted by bootlegpop at 3:51 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Here's an example weekly newsletter from the wayback machine (link taken from the NPR piece above). I miss you, Aquarius.
Ditto.
There was initially talk about compiling the reviews from the website in book form (which I and quite a few other people would pay $ for). Though I take it that's since (sadly) fallen by the wayside.
posted by gtrwolf at 8:58 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Ditto.
There was initially talk about compiling the reviews from the website in book form (which I and quite a few other people would pay $ for). Though I take it that's since (sadly) fallen by the wayside.
posted by gtrwolf at 8:58 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
And you pretty much have to do that when your job is reviewing both Ozzy Osborne and Reba McEntire, and everything in between.
I think that is kind of pompous, like you can deem both the intentions of the artist and have a deep enough understanding of literally everything to know if they achieved it in a few listens to meet a writing deadline. Especially with music where you can only listen to a few songs a day so the ultimate purpose of music reviews is to maximize your (and presumably the audience that trusts you) listening time.
I get it with like Rolling Stone top list - the best songs are obviously also the most popular/most culturally relevant ones, so you can use other peoples' opinions as a giant filter, and as such Black Sabbath with Ozzy was popular enough, but Reba (and much other country music or classical music) didn't even make the list.
But with anything less corporate than that? It's more honest to just not review the stuff you don't like.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:11 AM on October 7, 2021
I think that is kind of pompous, like you can deem both the intentions of the artist and have a deep enough understanding of literally everything to know if they achieved it in a few listens to meet a writing deadline. Especially with music where you can only listen to a few songs a day so the ultimate purpose of music reviews is to maximize your (and presumably the audience that trusts you) listening time.
I get it with like Rolling Stone top list - the best songs are obviously also the most popular/most culturally relevant ones, so you can use other peoples' opinions as a giant filter, and as such Black Sabbath with Ozzy was popular enough, but Reba (and much other country music or classical music) didn't even make the list.
But with anything less corporate than that? It's more honest to just not review the stuff you don't like.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:11 AM on October 7, 2021
when your job is reviewing both Ozzy Osborne and Reba McEntire, and everything in between.
I think that is kind of pompous, like you can deem both the intentions of the artist and have a deep enough understanding of literally everything to know if they achieved it in a few listens to meet a writing deadline.
Pompous is a bit harsh as a generality, though certainly some publications anr reviewers may deserve it individually. But, yeah, the reviewers, at least in main stream publications, job is in the writing more than the reviewing, however much they may personally try to be fair in the latter. They are paid to give an overview of what to buy or listen to and hopefully entertain their audience with a few salient features of the music or witty commentary while meeting their deadlines. While some reviewers are good at that, deadline reviewing isn't and can't really be in depth consideration of music or any other art. That's more a job for criticism written after some time have elapsed to get a fuller understanding of context and feel for the music. That doesn't mean all critics are good either of course, but the difference is still of some use to note.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:47 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think that is kind of pompous, like you can deem both the intentions of the artist and have a deep enough understanding of literally everything to know if they achieved it in a few listens to meet a writing deadline.
Pompous is a bit harsh as a generality, though certainly some publications anr reviewers may deserve it individually. But, yeah, the reviewers, at least in main stream publications, job is in the writing more than the reviewing, however much they may personally try to be fair in the latter. They are paid to give an overview of what to buy or listen to and hopefully entertain their audience with a few salient features of the music or witty commentary while meeting their deadlines. While some reviewers are good at that, deadline reviewing isn't and can't really be in depth consideration of music or any other art. That's more a job for criticism written after some time have elapsed to get a fuller understanding of context and feel for the music. That doesn't mean all critics are good either of course, but the difference is still of some use to note.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:47 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
oh god that Arab Strap review is something else. I think part of the attraction of Pitchfork was what preceeded it - which was essentially Rolling Stone, Spin and CMJ.
Of the three it was CMJ I subscribed too and for most of the magazine's print run. They included a whole cd of random tracks every month. And provided you understood CMJ was entirely labal driven, it was a great resource of total randomness from all over. The reviews where simply an attempt to catalog the explosion of music that was being created in the 90's, and like RS and Spin not particularly critical. Unlike those two, these CMJ reviews were generally only a paragraph long.
And that is how I ended up a radio dj at a college radio station. I had been listening to DJ Food and Ani DiFranco and the Causey Way, and those started with a single on a CMJ disc.
The pre-high speed internet lasted years and years.
posted by zenon at 7:22 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Of the three it was CMJ I subscribed too and for most of the magazine's print run. They included a whole cd of random tracks every month. And provided you understood CMJ was entirely labal driven, it was a great resource of total randomness from all over. The reviews where simply an attempt to catalog the explosion of music that was being created in the 90's, and like RS and Spin not particularly critical. Unlike those two, these CMJ reviews were generally only a paragraph long.
And that is how I ended up a radio dj at a college radio station. I had been listening to DJ Food and Ani DiFranco and the Causey Way, and those started with a single on a CMJ disc.
The pre-high speed internet lasted years and years.
posted by zenon at 7:22 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
I can't decide if I like this or not. On the one hand: yay poptimism and yay evolving feelings. On the other hand, boo to "well everyone else said it was good so magically this music sounds good to my ears now when it didn't before." Be brave! Stand by your opinion!
(I have forced myself to listen to critical darlings until I loved them, she said hypocritically. It worked 2 out of 4 times.)
posted by pelvicsorcery at 4:19 AM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
(I have forced myself to listen to critical darlings until I loved them, she said hypocritically. It worked 2 out of 4 times.)
posted by pelvicsorcery at 4:19 AM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
The problem with poptimism is that it can shade into a sort of toxic positivity, where everything is equally valid and any form of critical commentary is considered an attack.
posted by acb at 4:53 AM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by acb at 4:53 AM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think part of the attraction of Pitchfork was what preceded it - which was essentially Rolling Stone, Spin and CMJ.
Rolling Stone was so boomer-centric that they seemed out of touch even in the early 80s when I started reading it. At least Pitchfork didn't think that every U2 album was a new masterpiece and every sad late period Rolling Stones album was a welcome return to form.
posted by octothorpe at 7:19 AM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
Rolling Stone was so boomer-centric that they seemed out of touch even in the early 80s when I started reading it. At least Pitchfork didn't think that every U2 album was a new masterpiece and every sad late period Rolling Stones album was a welcome return to form.
posted by octothorpe at 7:19 AM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
I want an apology for that period when rock critics tried to explain semiotics to you.
posted by thelonius at 8:19 AM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 8:19 AM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
Rolling Stone was so boomer-centric that they seemed out of touch even in the early 80s
And yet Rolling Stone gave The Boy with the Arab Strap the rating Pitchfork should have in 1998.
I read the Australian RS from the late '80s to the late '90s. Its reviews were a mix of US RS reviews and Australian boomer and Gen X writers, which meant its critical position was all over the place. The US Best Of lists and big interviews and retrospectives were shaped by Jann Wenner's boomer sensibilities, while the Australian local material made more of the '90s moment. It covered a lot of alternative bands (US, UK and Australian), and also a fair amount of hip hop and pop, all filtered through that sensibility - Madonna and Prince featured heavily throughout the decade, their place as Gen X pop royalty already assured (Michael Jackson, too). Yes, they raved about every new U2 album even when they shouldn't have, and missed things they shouldn't have, but as we see, so did Pitchfork.
posted by rory at 4:52 AM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
And yet Rolling Stone gave The Boy with the Arab Strap the rating Pitchfork should have in 1998.
I read the Australian RS from the late '80s to the late '90s. Its reviews were a mix of US RS reviews and Australian boomer and Gen X writers, which meant its critical position was all over the place. The US Best Of lists and big interviews and retrospectives were shaped by Jann Wenner's boomer sensibilities, while the Australian local material made more of the '90s moment. It covered a lot of alternative bands (US, UK and Australian), and also a fair amount of hip hop and pop, all filtered through that sensibility - Madonna and Prince featured heavily throughout the decade, their place as Gen X pop royalty already assured (Michael Jackson, too). Yes, they raved about every new U2 album even when they shouldn't have, and missed things they shouldn't have, but as we see, so did Pitchfork.
posted by rory at 4:52 AM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
No correction of the Flaming Lips Zaireeka 0.0? Pain in the ass to get 4 CD players sync’d, yeah, but there are some fantastic tracks on that album.
The Zaireeka is one of the many reviews that have simply been disappeared from the site without comment. Also their (positive) review of Everclear’s So Much For The Afterglow.
Pitchfork used to be a bratty publication! They could be bratty because they were college kids (or college-aged kids) outsiders! You shouldn’t apologize for that, you should just acknowledge that you were bratty because that’s where you fit in the power structure and move on! You want to apologize? Revisit the whole Clap Your Hands Say Yeah mess, or your Dismemember Plan album follow-up mess, those times when Pitchfork obviously misunderstood just how much weight that they had in the industry. That’s the real story, I believe - how Pitchfork killed bands that it didn’t actually realize it had the power to kill, and how, when you’re a nothing in the industry, you can love things that are blatantly uncool.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:36 PM on October 12, 2021 [2 favorites]
The Zaireeka is one of the many reviews that have simply been disappeared from the site without comment. Also their (positive) review of Everclear’s So Much For The Afterglow.
Pitchfork used to be a bratty publication! They could be bratty because they were college kids (or college-aged kids) outsiders! You shouldn’t apologize for that, you should just acknowledge that you were bratty because that’s where you fit in the power structure and move on! You want to apologize? Revisit the whole Clap Your Hands Say Yeah mess, or your Dismemember Plan album follow-up mess, those times when Pitchfork obviously misunderstood just how much weight that they had in the industry. That’s the real story, I believe - how Pitchfork killed bands that it didn’t actually realize it had the power to kill, and how, when you’re a nothing in the industry, you can love things that are blatantly uncool.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:36 PM on October 12, 2021 [2 favorites]
think that is kind of pompous, like you can deem both the intentions of the artist and have a deep enough understanding of literally everything to know if they achieved it in a few listens to meet a writing deadline.
wow, way late to replying, but guess what? I agree. It's not possible to really do it properly. And I was only marginally qualified to do so. Thanks to gusottertrout for saying it far more eloquently than I could, but in short: I worked for a small publication, reviews were a part of my job, those were my assignments, and I had to do them and meet the deadlines.
I did get a lot of great free CDs and concert tickets out of the deal, though.
posted by martin q blank at 10:41 AM on October 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
wow, way late to replying, but guess what? I agree. It's not possible to really do it properly. And I was only marginally qualified to do so. Thanks to gusottertrout for saying it far more eloquently than I could, but in short: I worked for a small publication, reviews were a part of my job, those were my assignments, and I had to do them and meet the deadlines.
I did get a lot of great free CDs and concert tickets out of the deal, though.
posted by martin q blank at 10:41 AM on October 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
« Older #striketober | TJ guessed that a six-year-old likes animals. What... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
One takeaway is that art can be very much of its moment, and once the moment is passed, it's just not the same.
Last year Fetch the Bolt Cutters got a 10.0 at Pitchfork and that garnered some negative reactions. As I listen through it I think it's pretty good, but it probably seemed really vital to some because of that exact moment in time. Both the limited, junky sound palette and the lyrics to "Fetch..." spoke to our experience of quarantine, and the defiant feminism engaged #metoo. I don't think it will sound the same in 20 years.
posted by anhedonic at 5:18 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]